作者原名 ：Veronika Saraswati，系印度尼西亚战略与国际研究中心中国研究部主任、政治学博士。

　　东盟区域论坛是在世界经济危机和经济不确定性的背景下举行的。本论坛的良好成果必须是出席本论坛的各方必须执行的议程。对于深陷经济危机的世界来说，加强区域主义和包容开放的多边主义具有破局之势，因为排他性的单边主义只会加剧经济危机。
为了全球经济的复苏，需要所有国家之间的密切合作，而不是冲突和战争。制裁和经济抵制只会进一步加剧经济危机。制裁和经济抵制是经济部门的强制性惩罚形式，其影响与战争一样具有破坏性。
实现共同繁荣的精神必须继续成为东盟与中国合作的基本原则。考虑到区域主义，东盟和中国成为在不确定的世界中推动全球经济发展的重要引擎之一。
南海问题
对话与合作是维护南海和平、解决分歧和矛盾、增进各方互信的最佳途径。在推进《南海行为准则》磋商过程中，东盟国家应加强自主权，排除美国的干涉。
早些时候，东盟国家和中国正在积极推动南海合作委员会的磋商。在商业健全的过程中，东盟国家应加强自主权，排除美国的影响和干涉，这是维护南海和平与稳定的唯一原则。
美国在外交政策上一贯奉行双重标准，对地区和世界的和平与稳定构成威胁。美国对南海的干涉既没有法律依据，也没有道德依据。美国本身没有加入《联合国海洋法公约》（UNCLOS），但试图以《联合国海上法公约》的名义在南海问题上制造冲突。美国以各种借口增加对该地区的干涉，只会破坏该地区的和平与稳定。
美国试图在南海问题上加剧和升级紧张局势，旨在复制冷战时期的战术，围绕南海建立美国领导的联盟体系，加强对地区国家的控制，并包围中国。目前，许多东盟国家正感受到来自美国的压力，并对美国试图增加其在该地区的军事存在表示担忧。美英澳核潜艇合作给地区安全带来的风险也引起了地区国家的严重关切。
对话与合作是维护南海和平稳定、解决分歧和矛盾、增进各方互信的最佳途径。美国的冷战和零和博弈思维在该地区没有市场，该地区各国普遍希望通过和平谈判解决分歧，共同维护地区和平稳定。东盟国家和中国不仅地理位置相近，而且是互利互惠的伙伴，在维护南海地区的和平与稳定方面负有共同责任。
2002年签署的《南海各方行为宣言》确立了各方处理南海问题的基本原则和共同准则，特别是有关主权国家应通过直接友好协商和谈判，以和平方式解决领土和管辖权争端的重要共识。当前，各方将在《南海各方行为宣言》精神的指引下，继续推进南海合作委员会磋商，为南海和平稳定提供更有力的制度保障。
南海应该成为造福周边国家的合作之海。东盟国家和中国都希望进一步扩大海上合作，促进共同发展繁荣。东盟国家与中国在海洋经济、海洋科技、海洋生态环境保护等领域有着广阔的合作空间。
通过共同努力，双方一定能够充分挖掘海上合作潜力，为各自发展增添动力，为维护南海和平稳定积累更多互信和共识。东盟与中国在南海的海洋合作也必须坚持这一原则，以优化海洋产品的经济价值。中国在利用海洋潜力供人类消费方面拥有先进的技术，因此，预计中国将在技术转让方面做出重大贡献，优化海洋部门，造福南海周边的民众。
在推动南海合作委员会磋商的过程中，东盟国家应增加自主权，排除美国的影响和干涉。
缅甸危机
缅甸的政治危机是东盟面临的问题之一。缅甸危机应由缅甸全体人民自己解决，不需要任何一方的干预。东盟需要为解决危机提供积极投入，但不应以任何理由进行干预，包括以任何理由代表民主和人权进行干预。所采用的民主和人权概念可能不是民主和人权的真正概念。各方如果都想在解决缅甸危机时运用人权概念，首先必须考虑的是缅甸人民的利益是否已经成为最重要的一部分，谁从缅甸的政治经济利益中受益呢？
如果美国一贯将民主和人权的概念作为衡量缅甸政府政权是否正确的参数，为什么美国在过去两年一直想推翻缅甸军政府政权？缅甸不是自20世纪60年代以来一直是由军政府统治吗？
事实上，对于西方国家，尤其是美国来说，一个国家是军政府还是民选政府，是神权政府还是世俗主义政府，是绝对君主制政府还是民主政府，都无关紧要。对美国来说，最重要的不是政府形式的问题，而是该国政府是否愿意顺从地为美国政治经济的利益服务。自1996年以来，许多美国、英国和澳大利亚所有的能源公司，都从缅甸的业务中受益匪浅，当时缅甸也在军政府统治下，由丹瑞将军管理。
即使在1996年，美国政府的报告也说，缅甸拥有丰富的石油和天然气潜力。但该报告没有提及缅甸军政府的高压统治。英国也承认缅甸的石油和天然气潜力。与美国的外交政策类似，英国当时也选择对缅甸军政府保持沉默，因为缅甸军政府向雪佛龙（美国）公司、雪佛龙在缅甸的子公司康菲石油公司（美国）、英国天然气集团（英国）和奥菲尔公司（英国）提供了大量大额合同。优尼科缅甸离岸有限公司（UMOCL）与缅甸合作伙伴合作超过25年，以刺激经济增长和发展。
这些公司完成了当时从缅甸军政府获得合同的跨国公司名单。其他公司包括壳牌（英国-荷兰）、挪威国家石油公司、伍德赛德（澳大利亚）、埃尼集团（意大利）和道达尔（法国）。其中许多合同，特别是涉及雪佛龙、奥菲尔、埃尼和伍德赛德的合同，都在若开邦盆地运营，靠近罗兴亚人大屠杀的地点。
如果以美国为首的西方国家一贯采取民主和人权的方法来反对缅甸军政府，那么自1996年代以来（甚至可能在1996年代之前），他们就应该拒绝在缅甸投资和经营能源企业。但其中一些西方拥有的公司继续在军政府政权下开展业务，以从能源部门获得巨大的经济利益。
奇怪的是，此时，正是在2023年雅加达举行的东盟外交部长论坛上，布林肯表示，美国和东盟应该向军政府施压，要求其停止暴力，落实东盟五点共识，恢复民主政府。他指出，美国刚刚宣布向该地区追加7400万美元的人道主义援助。其中包括6100万美元用于帮助从缅甸流离失所的罗兴亚人。
美国的这一行动当然是一个很大的悖论。西方这种隐藏在民主和人权概念背后的机会主义心态对缅甸和世界的和平产生了反作用。美国和西方利用民主和人权仅仅是为政治干预其他国家的政治事务辩护，以维持实际上已经暗淡的政治经济的主导地位。
为什么不给缅甸一个解决国内政治问题的机会呢？缅甸的问题不仅涉及军政府统治，还涉及种族冲突这一由来已久的矛盾，自殖民时代以来，种族冲突就一直在发生。国际社会必须质疑，那个时候英国在缅甸不同种族冲突中扮演了什么角色？
美国这次强烈反对军政府，因为目前的军政府不服从为美国的政治经济利益服务，因此，美国竭尽全力要推翻。可见，民主和人权只是美国失去对缅甸控制要进行干预的借口。
现在是国际社会澄清不恰当的民主和人权概念的时候了。民主和人权不是为其他国家内政中的政治干预和统治政治辩护的工具。为了政治干预而借口民主与人权的双重标准，破坏了人类规范和价值观本身。

原文：

Cooperation instead of Sanction for Global Economic Recovery

ASEAN-China partnership is important engine for global economic recovery

The ASEAN Regional Forum takes place in the midst of the world economic crisis and economic uncertainty. Good results in this Forum must be an agenda that must be carried out by all parties present in this Forum. Strengthening regionalism and inclusive and open multilateralism is an important antithesis to major crises in the world economy because exclusive unilateralism will only make economic destruction worse.

For the recovery of the global economy, close cooperation amongst all countries is needed, rather than conflicts and wars. Sanctions and economic boycotts will only further aggravate the economic crisis. Sanctions and economic boycotts are forms of coercive punishment in the economic sector, the effects of which are as destructive as armed war.

The spirit of realizing common prosperity must continue to be the basic principle of cooperation between ASEAN and China. Considering that regionalism ASEAN and China become one of the important engines driving the global economy amidst the uncertainty world.

South China Sea issue

Dialogue and cooperation are the best way to maintain peace in the South China Sea (SCS), resolve differences and contradictions, and enhance mutual trust among all parties. In the process of promoting the consultation on the Code of Conduct (CoC) in the SCS, ASEAN countries should strengthen their autonomy and exclude interference from the United States

Earlier, ASEAN countries and China are actively promoting consultations on the CoC in the SCS. In the process of commercial sound, it is very important that ASEAN countries should strengthen their autonomy and exclude influence and interference from the USA. This is the only principle to maintain peace and stability in SCS.

The USA has always pursued double standards in its foreign policy, posing a threat to regional and world peace and stability. The USA interference in the SCS has no legal basis and no moral basis. The USA itself basically has not acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but it is trying to create conflicts in the SCS issue in the name of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The USA’ attempts to increase its interference in the region under various pretexts will only undermine regional peace and stability.

The USA is trying to intensify and to escalate tensions in the SCS issue aimed to replicating the tactics of the Cold War, forming a US-led alliance system around the SCS, strengthening its control over regional countries, and encircling China. At present, many ASEAN countries are feeling pressure from the USA and are concerned about the USA’ attempts to increase its military presence in the region. The risks brought to regional security by USA-UK-Australia nuclear submarine cooperation have also aroused serious concerns among regional countries.

Dialogue and cooperation are the best way to maintain peace and stability in the SCS, resolve differences and contradictions, and enhance mutual trust among all parties. The Cold War and zero-sum game thinking of the USA have no market in the region, and countries in the region generally hope to resolve differences through peaceful negotiations and jointly maintain regional peace and stability. ASEAN countries and China are not only geographically close, but both sides have also mutually beneficial partners and share a common responsibility in maintaining peace and stability in the SCS.

The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, signed in 2002, established the basic principles and common norms for all parties to handle the SCS issue, in particular, the important consensus that sovereign states directly concerned should resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means through friendly consultations and negotiations. At present, guided by the spirit of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the SCS, all parties will continue to promote consultations on the CoC in the SCS, which will provide a stronger institutional guarantee for peace and stability in the SCS.

The SCS should become a sea of cooperation for the benefit of neighboring countries. ASEAN countries and China both hope to further expand maritime cooperation and promote common development and prosperity. ASEAN countries and China have broad space for cooperation in marine economy, marine science and technology, and marine ecological environmental protection.

Through joint efforts, the two sides will certainly be able to fully explore the potential of maritime cooperation, add impetus to their respective developments, and accumulate more mutual trust and consensus for maintaining peace and stability in the SCS. ASEAN and China maritime cooperation in the SCS must also be carried out such as cooperation in order to optimize the economic value of maritime products. China has advanced technology in utilizing the potential of the sea for human consumption, therefore it is expected that China will make a major contribution in technology transfer for the optimization of the marine sector for prosperity of all people surrounding the SCS.

Dialogue and cooperation are the best way to maintain peace and stability in the SCS, resolve differences and contradictions, and enhance mutual trust among all parties. In the process of promoting consultations on the CoC in the SCS, ASEAN countries should increase their autonomy and exclude influence and interference from the USA.

Myanmar crisis

Myanmar’s political crisis is one of the problems facing ASEAN. The Myanmar crisis should be resolved by all Myanmar people themselves, without the intervention of any party. ASEAN needs to provide positive input for the solution of the crisis, but should not intervene for any reason, including by any reason on behalf of democracy and human rights. The concept of democracy and human rights adopted may not be the real concept of democracy and human rights. Precisely if all parties want to apply the concept of human rights in resolving the Myanmar case, the first thing that must be considered is whether the interests of the people of Myanmar have become the most important part to be listened to? who benefits greatly from Myanmar’s political economic interests?

If the USA consistently applies the concepts of democracy and human rights as parameters for whether or not the government regime in Myanmar is the right one, why has it been the last two years that the USA has wanted to bring down the Myanmar junta regime? Why not a long time ago? Isn’t Myanmar ruled by a junta government since the 1960s?

Actuality for the Western in particular the USA, it does not matter whether a country adopts a junta or civil form of government, whether theocracy or secularism government, whether absolute monarchy or democratic government. The most important thing for the USA is not the matter of government form but is the government of the country willing to obediently serve the interests of the US political economy or not.  Since 1996 many US, UK and Australian owned energy companies have benefited greatly from business in Myanmar, which at that time Myanmar was ruled under the junta regime as well, that was under Military General Than Shwe administration.

Even in 1996, the USA government report said that Myanmar had abundant of oil and gas potential. But the report did not mention the heavy-handed rule of Myanmar’s junta. The same applies to the UK which also recognizes Myanmar’s oil and gas potential. Similar to the USA’s foreign policy, UK also chose to remain silent on the Myanmar junta government at that time, because the Myanmar junta government gave a number of large contracts to Chevron (US) companies Chevron’s affiliate in Myanmar, Conoco Phillips (USA), BG Group (UK), and Ophir (UK). Unocal Myanmar Offshore Co. Ltd. (UMOCL) has worked with partners in Myanmar for more than 25 years to spur economic growth and development.

These companies complete the list of multinational companies that received contracts from Myanmar’s junta government at the time. Other companies include Shell (UK-Netherlands), Statoil (Norway), Woodside (Australia), Eni (Italy) and Total (France). Many of those contracts—especially those involving Chevron, Ophir, Eni, and Woodside—operate in the Rakhine basin, close to the location of the Rohingya ethnic massacre.

If the Western led by the USA have consistently implemented democratic and human rights approaches to oppose Myanmar’s military junta government, they should have refused to invest in and run energy businesses in Myanmar since the 1996s (or perhaps even before the 1996s). But some of these Western-owned companies continued to do business under the junta regime in order to reap huge economic benefits from the energy sector.

And strangely, at this time, precisely at the ASEAN Foreign Minister Forum in Jakarta 2023, Blinken said the USA and ASEAN should pressure the junta government to stop the violence and implement the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus and restore democratic government. He noted that the USA has just announced an additional $74 million in humanitarian assistance to the region. This includes $61 million to help the Rohingya people displaced from Myanmar.

This action of the USA is of course a big paradox. This opportunistic mentality of the West that hides behind such concepts of democracy and human rights is counterproductive to the creation of peace in Myanmar and the world. Democracy and human rights are used by the USA and the West solely for the sake of justification for political interference in the political affairs of other countries, in order to maintain the dominance of the political economy that has actually been dimmed.

Why not give Myanmar a chance to solve its own domestic political problems? Myanmar’s problem is not only about junta rule, but also involves primordialism of ethnic conflicts, where ethnic conflicts have occurred since colonial times. Instead, international society must question, what are the roles of UK in the colonialism period, in efforts to unite diverse ethnicities in Myanmar? considering that Myanmar was under British colonization in the colonialism period.

USA just now strongly oppose the junta government because the current junta government do not obey to serve USA’s politics economy interest. USA fails to get support from the current junta government. Therefore USA do all efforts by any means to overthrow the Tatmadaw rejime. Democracy and human rights is just pretex for USA’s lost of domination over Myanmar.

It is time for the international community to set the record straight on the improper concepts of democracy and human rights. Democracy and human rights are not tools for justification for political intervention and domination politics in the internal affairs of other countries. The application of the double standards of democracy and democracy for the purpose of political intervention undermines human norms and values themselves.